Comments on: FTC to Close Loopholes in Blogger-Marketer Relationships

By: Reese Payton

Reese Payton — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:09:59 +0000

The ends will not justify the means, I agree with “Craigslist Search”
Reese

By: Jessica

Jessica — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:59:51 +0000

I’ve been in favor of disclosure

http://www.jessicagottlieb.com/2009/05/the-ftc-and-mommy-bloggers-tech-talk-tuesday/

Ask Ted.

By: Craigslist Search

Craigslist Search — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:38:14 +0000

This is quite a proposition that the FTC has put upon us. Looking at this from multiple angles, it definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Like many rules, and regulations I agree with the spirit behind it. But the implementation is what scares me, and I have my extreme doubts about if the FTC is adequate enough to do a good job doing it. In essence, I donâ€™t think the ends will justify the means.

By: Tom Addison

Tom Addison — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:30:22 +0000

WOW! That is incredible… Ultimately, my thoughts are that this shouldn’t be regulated unless it’s deceptive, but then again – where do you draw the line. Ultimately, any blog owner should be smart enough to include this information in their policies – however, I think this is taking it a little far… The government has enough things to regulate and spend tax payer money on – people need to be accountable to themselves more often and use common sense when spending their money. However, I think that products and services that are deceptive should be researched thoroughly upon complaint in order to protect consumers…

By: Bill in Detroit

Bill in Detroit — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:32:39 +0000

I agree that a simple notice of disclosure is not too much to ask. But I disagree with the contention that, in the presence of the disclosure, it is unethical to accept the merchandise or other consideration in exchange for the review.

There is a balancing mechanism. Once a bias becomes evident in the reviewer (I’m thinking of some in the computer business), their credibility hits the skids. From that point forward, their reviews become somewhat less valuable than a faded sign on a faded barn along a seldom-used road.

There are some reviewers whose integrity has been discounted so many times that their positive reviews automatically steer me away from what they are promoting.

By: Ted Murphy

Ted Murphy — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:24:54 +0000

Great post Aaron. I would like to clarify that IZEA is in favor of stricter FTC disclosure requirements.

http://izea.com/izea-favor-stricter-ftc-disclosure-requirements/

By: Aaron Brazell

Aaron Brazell — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:33:02 +0000

I’m not the arbiter. I’m just right.

By: Jessica Gottlieb

Jessica Gottlieb — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:31:56 +0000

Well, if you are to be the arbiter of ethics, we are all doomed.

By: Aaron Brazell

Aaron Brazell — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:17:05 +0000

Sorry, you’re just on my radar right now. Unfortunately, the entire practice is too common for my liking and no, I don’t think you should have posted a review on your blog about the Lexus. So they gave it to you. Was it under the pretense of a review? Positive or negative? I’m sure that if it was to pass the fair trade sniff test, Toyota Legal would have to be involved.

Either way, it doesn’t matter.

By: Jessica Gottlieb

Jessica Gottlieb — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:12:52 +0000

Thanks for pointing me out.

1. I accepted a 48 hour test drive. I loved the car, lucky me.
2. I have had much shorter test drives with other cars and not written about them, becuase I didn’t have time to decide anything about the car.
3. I was not paid for that review. It cost me a fortune to park the car in NYC, if anything it was a loss.

You can hold me up to the light, I will pass any disclosure test you offer.